They paid (over and over) for one time water allotments.
The price of guaranteed access to water is much much higher, and they did not pay for it. It was probably not even for sale, and they should have known that. They are not entitled to anything.
Yes, in a way. They live within the bounds of a water district, which itself has water rights. These districts limit use (or the growth in use) by passing rules on the use (limiting the watering of grass, for example), or (fairly often in some places) limiting new service hookups. They won't let you connect if they don't think they can secure the supply long term.
Nothing is "guaranteed", so no. People usually congregate where resources exist, that's often why towns are where they are, near water for example. Where I live for example, freshwater comes from a pretty stable water source. Paying the municipality to operate and maintain that is as close to "guaranteed" as it gets probably.
Once the circumstances change, we'll have to adapt.
Water law in the US southwest is wild. The right to flows of water, into the future, is treated as a private property right and is bought and sold. Municipal water systems normally acquire the rights (and arrange transport).
As a homeowner I literally pay a fee every month to fund the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure that gets water to my home.
If that water supply is cut off without valid reason, there is a complaint mechanism with the local utility commission where the issue can be heard and resolved.
I also live in the municipality where my water is supplied, and therefore am represented by its government.
Therefore I am both economically and politically invested in that infrastructure.
Unfortunately none of this is true for the folks in this article.
Is that a "guarantee"? No. Nothing is guaranteed. But it's far better than the arrangement these folks operated under.
The arrangement they had with the town was closer to buying water at a gas station. You sort of assume it’s always going to be there, but one day it wasn’t because they stopped selling it.
There land did not come with any water rights (something you've got to ask about for any land out here not already hooked up to a metro water system), and thus you are entirely at the mercy of others and not guaranteed anything. Why you would ever choose to build/buy a home without some relatively senior water rights or a metered water connection is entirely beyond me.
"Fort Garland uses 120 acre-feet of water per year — that’s 120 acres covered by 1 foot of water. Sales to people in cisterns account for about 1 acre feet per year, Pacheco said. Revenue for the water sales to rural residents totaled $43,000 per year, about 15% of total revenue."
Lack of water is not the problem here, especially now that the town's pump has been fixed.
People are saying they weren't paying into the municipality. That implies people paying into the municipality are paying for more than just water. The people buying the water were just buying water.
Now, maybe that's now how you think of it, but I'm sure you can see how others see it.
Even YOU understand the difference because you had to misrepresent what people were saying.
> They paid the municipality for the water, but they didn't pay into the municipality.
That's the difference. "into" doesn't mean they are merely paying the municipality, but rather, they are paying to support the municipality.
The people buying water? They are merely buying water that's up for sale. That's it. There is no implication beyond that. Intent matters.
And it's clear that the outsiders had no intention of supporting the municipality even if you want to suggest that was the case.
There is a very real legal and practical difference between paying for 100G of water, and paying for the right to buy 100G per week for the next N years.
Both have a price in the American west, and they did not pay the latter price.
> Two economists are walking down the street. One of them says “Look, there’s a twenty-dollar bill on the sidewalk!” The other economist says “No there’s not. If there was, someone would have picked it up already.”
In this case, the economics of solar has been changing rapidly in recent years, so the caveat won't apply. Worst case, you can bend over and get a closer look.
Yeah, presumably the Software Engineer laughs at the two moronic "experts" and picks up the religious literature or strip club ad masquerading as cash.
Combination of very cheap periodic power and suitable infrastructure to supply heat energy is more recent phenomena. Supply that is very cheap power and demand that is capability to use that energy later need to match.
PG pointed this out a while back. He said that AIs were great at generating typical online comments. (NB I don't know which site's comments he might have been referring to.)
This sounds appealingly highbrow, but it's not particularly accurate in my experience. I think the critics often get into their own bizarre headspace that nobody else cares about.
They paid money for the water.
reply